iFishIENCi (Nov 2021) — Tilapia Laos feed-system panel
https://zenodo.org/records/10842711 →benchmark:ifish-tilapia-laos-nov-2021
Shape mix:
2
unimodal
2
left-skewed
Δ 0.47
4.07
()
→ 3.60
()
within-fixture gradient
Acceptance rubric
An SSR re-run acceptably reproduces this benchmark when it clears every check below on the same 4 paired questions the source publishes. The chip badges name the checks the round-38 → round-46 shape-mismatch finding argued are necessary but not sufficient in isolation.
CI overlap
4/4
Shape match
4/4
SSR mean inside CI · shape badge reproduces the source label.
What this benchmark discloses
Recruitment screener (verbatim)
Consumer/sensory panel recruited by LARReC (Living Aquatic Resources Centre) in Laos for the iFishIENCi project D3.6, second wave. Specific inclusion criteria not in the public spreadsheet; see project deliverable PDF at https://ifishienci.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/iFishIENCi_D3.6.pdf.
Sample weighting & demographics
Unweighted hedonic. 9-point discrete scale per ASTM/ISO 11036. Single rating per product per panellist per attribute. Only general impression is paired here.
Fieldwork dates, country, language
Laos (LARReC). Fieldwork month: 2021-11 (from filename _11.2021). Second wave of the same panel; adds a Bioactive arm.
Original question text & translations
On the 9-point hedonic scale, what is your general impression of this tilapia sample? (Peryam–Pilgrim 1957; ASTM E2454 / ISO 11036) — single rating per panellist per product.
Likert / scale labelling
9-point hedonic per ASTM/ISO 11036 standard (Peryam–Pilgrim 1957). 1 = "dislike extremely". 5 = "neither like nor dislike". 9 = "like extremely". Labels not embedded in the spreadsheet; standard sensory-science instrument cited.
FGI moderator guide & coding rules
Hedonic survey by trained consumer panel, not FGI. No moderator guide. Carryover order and serving were balanced per the iFishIENCi protocol.
Data source & license
CC-BY 4.0. Attribution: Rost, A. et al., ttz Bremerhaven (2024), iFishIENCi D3.6 sensory analysis. https://zenodo.org/records/10842711
Anything not disclosed here was not available in the source dataset and is recorded as such.
SSR run — reproducibility keys
- template_version
- 3.0.0
- llm_seed
- 4208
- bootstrap_seed
- 8416
- llm_model
- deepseek-v4-flash
- embedding_model
- nvidia/nv-embed-v1
SSR score vs ground truth, by question
Each row holds one question. The teal mark and range are SSR. The sky mark and range are the source FGI/survey.
§
Overall, how much do you like this tilapia? (Control — standard commercial feed)
SSR
—
Source
4.07 (3.83–4.31)
Source distribution
SD 0.48
skew -0.27
9 cells
unimodal
1.02.03.04.05.0
§
Overall, how much do you like this tilapia? (Insects — insect meal partially replacing fishmeal)
SSR
—
Source
3.63 (3.31–3.96)
Source distribution
SD 0.65
skew -0.50
9 cells
left-skewed
1.02.03.04.05.0
§
Overall, how much do you like this tilapia? (Algae — microalgae inclusion in the feed)
SSR
—
Source
3.83 (3.47–4.20)
Source distribution
SD 0.72
skew -0.86
9 cells
left-skewed
1.02.03.04.05.0
§
Overall, how much do you like this tilapia? (Bioactive — bioactive additives in the feed)
SSR
—
Source
3.60 (3.31–3.90)
Source distribution
SD 0.58
skew 0.11
9 cells
unimodal
1.02.03.04.05.0
More on this shelf
Aquaculture sensory panels
9-pt hedonic on aquaculture species across feed systems (Control / Insects / Algae / Bioactive), iFishIENCi D3.6. The gradient is which feed system the panel actually prefers.